The debate "Running politicians have no right to deny the grave crimes of their politically corrupt parent" was started by
November 7, 2015, 11:34 am.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave, Kaleighltay, AstroSpace, zoeclare7 and 10 visitors agree.
AnnaRrei and 2 visitors disagree.
I agree with both points. It is better for the country if he is honest because that way if he supports dictatorship he will not get support. For the public, a politician speaking out about what they honestly believe is always better than one lying since then they know whether they support what the politician stands for or not.
That does not mean that he should have the right to rewrite history to make his father look better. To do so either trivializes or denies outright the suffering of those wronged by the past regime. I know it is a much more extreme example, but I'd a politician were to deny the Holocaust, there would be an outcry against them.
Don't you think it's more dangerous that if he is forced to go against his belief, he fools the people?
People will think he's good and all without realizing that he supports his dictator father. Isn't that more harmful? How do you necessarily allow transparency if you always exert limitations/constrictions or you force what these politicians can say? Isn't it wrong that you end up forcing these politicians to lie to the people?
I already told you I don't think his actions are good. But I think transparency have to at least show up so we can reject his intentions OBJECTIVELY. I'm not having a modus operandi of supporting him/his father. I'm just being realistic here, hbu?
no he isn't harming anyone by saying that. but someone willing to defend a dictator might become one themselves. if you don't think a dictator was wrong then you probably shouldn't be a leader.
Disclaimer: I don't agree with his choice of actions too.
But don't you think what you're saying actually contradicts with freedom of speech? He's not necessarily harming someone by exposing his belief.
Understanding the background, I would have to agree. If it is documented and proven that his father committed crimes as a dictator, the son should not try to deny them.
just because the father was a dictator doesn't mean that the son is. if the son is defending the dictator then that is a whole other story. it isn't about what his father did. it is about what he thinks of what his father did and if he will emulate him.
I am a Filipino and this is happening in my country. Ferdinand Marcos was a dictator whose adminsistration caused many to perish in about the late 2/3 of his term. His son now becomes politically active and he is under scrutiny of the people because he denies that his father was a bad president and was rather the best one.
It makes me wonder how far should people's identity be based on a family's background. And how far should the public's distate and desire for the majority's opinion infringe one's opinion. And as much as it is, it's more complex because political affiliations also play a role such that for any politician to become acceptable to the people, he commonly sells himself. And right now people are not buying it.
I'm curious what this is referring to. Running politicians shouldn't deny crimes committed by their parents, but they are also not the one who committed the crime, so it shouldn't be counted against them.